Will any of these new buildings have nicely lit crowns like some of the buildings in Atlanta, LA, NYC, or Philly? I think that's what SF is really missing here. I think that the crown on the St. Regis could look really cool if that model shows exactly what it's final product will be, and adding light to that crown would be awesome. The closest things we have to lit crowns would be the dimly lit TAP (too dim IMO, needs to be much brighter) and the lights on the Embarcadero buildings, which look awesome even though its not a crown but an outline of each building. What do you guys think?

__________________
"This will not be known as the Times Square of the West," City Council President Alex Padilla declared last week. "Times Square will be known as the L.A. Live of the East."

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."

I'm a big fan of brightly lit crowns. Charlotte's Bank of America and New York's Bear Stearns are personal faves. San Francisco does lack an appropriate amount of skyscrapers with crowns. I agree, Transamerica's crown should be lit brighter. As for the St. Regis, at 484 ft, even if its lit crown looks as good as it does in the renderings, it wouldn't have much of an impact on the skyline because it's too short. It'd get loss in the mass. Hopefully, the Transbay Tower will have a brightly lit crown as well as the 550 ft residential tower on Rincon Hill.

If it makes you feel any better, TeknoTurd, if one of those proposed 550ft residential towers in the Transbay Terminal Redevelopment Area or on Rincon Hill, go 10 to 20 feet higher to 560-570ft, San Francisco could boast as to having not only the tallest residential building West of the Mississippi, but also having the tallest residential building in the US outside of New York and Chicago.

I talked to someone at Myers Corp. who picked up the job on the Century luxury condo high-rise from Heller Manus. They said that the project is definatley NOT on hold. This was news to be because last I heard it was conflicting with the Transbay Terminal plan, did anyone else hear anything about this? I'll try to check out the site this weekend and see what I can find out, but if someone can make it down there before me (its on 80 Natoma) that'd be great. I talked to another person at Heller Manus and he said that he was pretty sure that they had cleared out a bunch of stuff and were going to start working again in February or March. This is the only news I've heard about the project in the past month or so, so I'm assuming this is true cause it is coming from reliable people associated with the two developers. Jack Myer was supposed to give me a call back to give me a rundown on the project, but I doubt that'll happen, I'll see what I can dig up though.

__________________
"This will not be known as the Times Square of the West," City Council President Alex Padilla declared last week. "Times Square will be known as the L.A. Live of the East."

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."

I was just by the site a few weeks ago. It looks like theyve sunk some piles - and there are construction materials on site - but its definitely a surface parking lot right now. Glad to see there will be some movement on this site.

Romero: I dont think it's done I was there last week and there is still construction going on. I don't know what they consider complete though. The main structure is done, but its far from finished when you consider that there is no crown, and it is completley empty inside, no walls, I think the windows are in. But I dunno about anything else

__________________
"This will not be known as the Times Square of the West," City Council President Alex Padilla declared last week. "Times Square will be known as the L.A. Live of the East."

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."

I walked by the St. Regis two days ago-or, should I say, I walked under scaffolding and such--and I can say for certain that it is still under construction. Skyscrapers.com is wrong if they're stating otherwise.

__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013

Developers seeking to build four residential towers near the Bay Bridge gained a major ally Monday: the supervisor whose district includes the two blocks of Folsom Street where the towers would rise.

As originally planned, the projects known as 201 Folsom and 300 Spear streets would require the creation of roughly 235 affordable housing units based on current city requirements.

On Monday, however, developers agreed to Supervisor Chris Daly's request for new benchmarks that would increase the number of subsidized units by nearly 50 percent.

"By my math that translates to around 95 (additional) units" reserved for lower-income workers and families, Daly said late Monday afternoon.

"At this point, I am supporting the projects. ... I made what I thought was a pretty big ask, and the developers responded positively."

Daly is only one of 11 supervisors who will vote on whether to lift zoning restrictions on the two sites so that developers, Union Property Capital and Tishman Speyer Properties, can build a quartet of 35- and 40-story towers set atop a base of six- to eight-story structures.

But his support looms large because the construction projects are located within his district, which means other supervisors are likely to take cues from his stance.

The supervisor has raised other concerns about the two projects, including their scale and the fact that one includes enclosed above-ground parking for the U.S. Postal Service, which has a major facility next to the 201 Folsom site.

But with the pledge for additional subsidized housing, Daly said he believed the projects should now go forward.

Developers could not be reached for comment Monday. In the past, however, they have stressed their desire to work with city officials, residents and various interest groups to make 201 Folsom and 300 Spear as widely accepted as possible.

The two projects are the largest yet proposed for the area known as Rincon Hill, a former industrial district that San Francisco officials have earmarked for high-density housing.

Since 1985, roughly 1,400 apartments and condominiums have been built in the Rincon Hill area, with no tower higher than 27 stories.

By contrast, 300 Spear and 201 Folsom are now projected to include a combined 1,640 units.

The projects were to be reviewed Monday by the Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee.

That hearing was postponed and now is scheduled for Jan. 26.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So these projects will go before the Land Use Committee next Monday, and then go before the full board Tuesday, January 27th!

Some of those are quite nice, some are average like in any city. But whatever... San Francisco is a beautiful city whose natural beauty is only matched by Vancouver. Maybe Hong Kong too (I've never been).

*courtesy of J Church. in all likelyhood, this tower will be eliminated under the plan being floated by the Planning Department. Unfortunately, this tower would sit too close to other towers on Rincon Hill.

Something that I've been wondering. Lets say you are the owner of a current property in the rincon hill rezoning area - and your property is zoned for 350'
With the height limit your property is worth X$
Then the planning commission rezones your property for say 100'
The value of your property would tank. Is there any consideration or even compensation for this?
Just wondering how this all works.

How do I see it? If you don't have an entitlement from the Planning Department to build your residential tower before the Rincon Hill rezoning goes through this year, you're screwed. The Archdiocese of San Francisco is upset because their plans for a 300+ foot tower was reduced to 85 feet.

Why do you think 201 Folsom and 300 Spear Streets were *rushed* through the Planning Department before the Rincon Hill plans were released? I seriously doubt the Planning Department's ideal plans would have allowed 4 350-400 foot towers sitting 85 feet apart from each other. Do I necessarily care though? No. Overall, SF still has a high quality project, where the developer has made several concessions to appease community activists. And, most importantly, this project will still add 1,600 units of housing to SF's housing stock.

Where exactly is the building that the Diocese is building and what is it going to be for? At this point can they try and get their tower re...jiggered for lack of a better term :p for the new height limit?

__________________
"This will not be known as the Times Square of the West," City Council President Alex Padilla declared last week. "Times Square will be known as the L.A. Live of the East."

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."

TeknoTurd: The Archdiocese of SF owns the property at the corner of Fremont and Harrison at 399 Fremont. The Archdiocese intends/ intended to build a 37 story, 350 ft residential tower at the site. I doubt the Planning Department will allow them to go through with their plans if the Rincon Hill rezoning plan goes through as planned. If they do, they'll be five towers sitting at the top of Rincon Hill, creating a wall that the Planning Department is trying to avoid. Ideally, the Planning Department would want to see the multiple developers along Fremont Street to consolidate all their residential projects into one 300 ft tower at the corner of Fremont and Folsom and into the mid-rises proposed for Fremont street.

lakegz: It is an interesting building. I personally can't wait to see the final project. It's interesting to point out too that the building exceeds the height limits for the area. But, since the building is being sponsored by the federal government, their needs trump city zoning. Too bad, the federal government didn't ask for a 1,000ft tower.